Unsuitable TV/Ads before watershed

daveg

Has anyone noticed how some TV is getting very unsuitable before the watershed. 2 examples I have are the drink driving add (the one where the 3 lads are in the pub drinking at a table eying up a blonde at the bar. She walks past and the table hit's her like a car). Very very unsuitable and I've seen it on ITV twice, during the world cup at 7:50pm.

Also the Simpsons... My son loves them and we used to let him watch them as all the adult jokes went over his head (these comments used to always be very vailed). However we have had to stop him watching them as some of the stuff is very unsuitable like Homer saying "ship the kids off to your mums so we can have sex" and loads of other stuff....

Have I just missed it before or does it seem to be getting worse?

Nevyn

Well "ship the kids off to your mums so we can have sex" would not bother me
as my two sat and had a converstation between them and then informed me they knew what sex was.
Sex is kissing and cuddles in bed when you are naked or a little bit naked and grown ups do it with other grown ups they love.

With the advent of cable and dedicated channel for children and teens you are going to see more adult programming on the other stations.

TBH you are in control, change the channel or turn it off and do something else like reading with your kids or play a board game.

daveg

Thaedydal wrote:

TBH you are in control, change the channel or turn it off and do something else like reading with your kids or play a board game.

TBH I disagree. Graphic adverts depicting women being killed in a pub should not be shown before the watershed. What is the watershed there for?

pokerwidow

Lol what age are your children Thaedydal? Smart cookies. I agree about the watershed that there are so many things on that are just not suitable. My 6 yr old went to a friends house and turned on MTV etc when she came home. Now I am youngish (20s, late:) ) but the music videos are taking things way too far. Put on some clothes girl. But we can not wrap them in cotton wool and maybe explaining the effects of drink driving to them will scare the hell out of them. It depends on their age, of course.

Dave you can complain to the brodcasting commission if you feel strongly about it or switch fast when something comes on.:)

Nevyn

pokerwidow wrote:

Lol what age are your children Thaedydal? Smart cookies.

8 and just about 6.
And the just about 6 year old has figured you can choose not to have babies and that a dr would be able to tell you how not have a baby cos dr know about baby's and how they grown in mammy's tummys and not every lady wants to be a mammy.

The regular soap operas tend to be on before the water shed and I would not let my children watch them, hell I don't let myself watch them.

pokerwidow

I know what you mean about the soaps. Our 6yr old knows that two girls (or guys) kissing are 'gay', her words not mine. Which people might say is a good thing but she has not a clue what a nun is and cannot seem to grasp the whole married to God thing. The soaps can be very inappropiate or maybe that is just me.

simu

Yeah, soaps are weird. The characters in them seem to have such negative interactions most of the time - pettiness, shouting at each other etc. Not the best model for kids really! I'd switch them off!

The Hill Billy

I made a complaint recently to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission a few months ago on this subject.

TV3 were running an ad for that movie "The Hills Have Eyes" just before Coronation Street. The ad was pretty freaky (even for an adult) with images of what looked like deformed foetuses, etc.

I complained on the fact that as it was an 18+ movie & the images would be disturbing to a child who may be viewing (my lad is 3 1/2 & it is not uncommon for him to be up until 8 o'clock) - surely it should be broadcast after the watershed?

The BCC told me that as TV3 were not broadcasting childrens' shows at the time there was no basis for complaint.

Obviously the onus is on parents/guardians as to what a child may view, but it is ridiculous to think that you need to have your finger on the remote ready to change channel during ad breaks at any time of the day.

Ayla

Hill Billy -

Dare I be so bold as to question why you're allowing your 3 1/2 yr old to be watching Coronation Street? Shouldn't a child of that age be doing something else with their evening? Also, the rating of the commercials are based on the program currently showing, not on what they're advertising.

I know how tempting it is for everyone to sit in front of the tv for the evening, but if you're concerned about a commerical being shown at 8o'clock during a soap, shouldn't you re-think why you're allowing your wee ones to sit around watching such programs?

I know that's quite harsh of me to say, and everyone's allowed to raise their children as they see fit, but I hate the idea of such young ones growing up so fast...aren't they allowed to just be kids anymore? It's the summer...can't the kids be outside playing at 8o'clock?

Nevyn

Ayla wrote:

It's the summer...can't the kids be outside playing at 8 o'clock?

Certainly not on a school night,
and even when there is not school the next day I would not have mine out that late as it is when they are going to get tired and cranky.

tk123

pokerwidow wrote:

I know what you mean about the soaps. Our 6yr old knows that two girls (or guys) kissing are 'gay', her words not mine.

my nephew told me what gay was - he's 10 but he's swedish so I was more amused/surprised that he knew the word gay at all- "gay is when you like girls for friends - not for love" haha:rolleyes:

pokerwidow

Lol tk123, he is dead right.
In billy's defence, we sometimes have the tv on over in the corner of an open plan room. Noone is watching it, but it still might be on. A 3 yr old is never going to watch Corrie out of interest but God do children like ads. Our 2yr & 3yr dance when the Shelia's Wheels ads come on . Some sight.

luckat

TV has become completely dominant. I was reading Diary of a Nobody online recently - never liked it before but now I'm finding it funny - and it was amazing how people in it play parlour games and go for walks and read and chat - this was written before radio or even gramophones, much less TV.

The whole concept of "going for a walk" is gone, replaced by slumping in front of a television, watching people being horrible to each other in shows you'll never remember a day later.

(Used to be that people would eat dinner together then everyone would mooch around and do what they were doing - wash up and put the dishes away, chat, read - and invariably someone would say "Fancy going for a walk?" and some or all would go out and walk for an hour or so, talking about life and teasing things out. Now our local park is deserted but for dog walkers and a few couples.)

I've seen two successful ways of having a TV. One is to keep it in a cabinet that's closed unless it's opened to watch a specific show - out of sight, out of mind.

The other is the approach of friends of mine a few years ago who had two teenage sons. They put the TV in a room with really uncomfortable Tintawn carpet - you know, that prickly stuff like hemp rope - and no chairs were allowed in. I think the TV may also have been on the wall.

TV has become the centre of the family, the moral instructor, the setter of standards on what's acceptable. Not right. Take back the power!

Ayla

luckat wrote:

TV has become the centre of the family, the moral instructor, the setter of standards on what's acceptable. Not right. Take back the power!

Luckat - Thank you, well said. I agree about TV being so dominant in our lives that we forget that there's anything else. It's sad to see.

If adults sit around the boop-tube every night, and they teach their kids the same thing, no wonder the next generation is coming up with all sorts of behavioural, physical and ethical baggage.

What ever happened to picking up a book, playing a game or taking a walk? I grew up being allowed a half-hour of tv time everyday, and I think it was because of this that I have so many childhood memories. I climbed trees, scrapped my knees, made forts out of bedsheets and took walks with my siblings.

What a tragedy it would be for this next generation to only have memories of their favorite tv shows.

squire1

Ayla wrote:

What ever happened to picking up a book, playing a game or taking a walk? I grew up being allowed a half-hour of tv time everyday, and I think it was because of this that I have so many childhood memories. I climbed trees, scrapped my knees, made forts out of bedsheets and took walks with my siblings.

I recently moved back to a rural area where I grew up. It brought memories flooding back of long summers spent outdoors from dawn till dusk with a gang of kids from the area. Our parents never knew exactly where we were. There are plenty of kids in the area now but I rearly seem to see them out on their bikes or exploring the fields.

Is it a case that parents are happier when they know exactly where their kids are every minute of every day now and so allow them to hang around the house all day? I'm looking forward to when my two boys are old enough so that I can show them the "secret camps" I used to play in or the best places to get chestnuts or the little streams that we used to catch fish in. Will they be interested? I hope so.

The Hill Billy

Ayla wrote:

Dare I be so bold as to question why you're allowing your 3 1/2 yr old to be watching Coronation Street? Shouldn't a child of that age be doing something else with their evening?

He's normally snuggling up to me on the sofa for some "quiet time" & a bed time story before he goes to bed (generally between 7:15 & 7:45).

Ayla wrote:

I know that's quite harsh of me to say...

Not quite - more like being just a bit to quick to make assumptions & pass judgment.

Ayla

Hill Billy wrote:

He's normally snuggling up to me on the sofa for some "quiet time" & a bed time story before he goes to bed (generally between 7:15 & 7:45).

Not quite - more like being just a bit to quick to make assumptions & pass judgment.

Hill Billy - I respect your comments, and you're right to some extent. My point with what I said was that if you don't like what your child is watching, turn the tv off. Especially if you're having some "quiet time" with your child (which, btw, I think is a fantastic idea), why does the tv have to be on? If you like to have background noise, maybe you could turn on some music?

To everyone here - All of my comments on this forum are just trying to show that I firmly believe that each parent is directly responsible for the tv images their children see. If you don't like what they're seeing than you have complete control to turn the tv off and present them with some other stimulation (or relaxation, as the case may be). Stop complaining to the tv broadcastors and take the responsibility yourself.

Of course, like I said before, everyone is entitled to raise their children as they see fit. I just cringe when I hear parents complain about the tv that's out there, but do nothing to control their own children and the amount of tv they watch. Of course, mine is just one side of the coin.

The Hill Billy

daveg wrote:

Have I just missed it before or does it seem to be getting worse?

To get back to your original post...
You are probably more sensitive to what is being broadcast these days & are better "tuned in" to what your kid(s) may be seeing.

Also, I agree that what is being broadcast before the watershed is getting more "extreme".

I pay my license fee & if I am not happy with the service it is my right to complain. We all have the right to demand of our national broadcasters better quality content before the watershed. Should we choose not to exercise that right I can only imagine that broadcast standards will drop further.

God be with the days when the only TV ads you had to worry about at tea-time as you were tucking into your bacon, cabbage & potatoes were those for getting rid of Fluke, Liverworm, Scour or Mastitis.

Hagar

Getting back to the OP, I agree to some extent that the ad is graphic and could be disturbing to younger children, but I have to wonder is it a bad thing to show kids the reality of car accidents/ drink driving? They see so much phoney violence in cartoons and such, the Coyote being flattened by the truck and getting up with a tyre mark on his back for instance, that they have no real concept of the damage a car actually does. I'd rather have my child a little scared than a lot dead.

TheIrishGrover

Hagar wrote:

Getting back to the OP, I agree to some extent that the ad is graphic and could be disturbing to younger children, but I have to wonder is it a bad thing to show kids the reality of car accidents/ drink driving?

I agree. I know the ad is disturbing. (I find them so myself) But I would imagine that the ad was put on at these times to have maximum impact. You did say that one of the times you saw this ad was during a world cup match. What better time to show it than when people are in the pub watching the match after work.(And, seeing as it was on ITV, chances are it was aimed at England) I would imagine it was on then to make people think. I don't think we should catagorise these public safety type ads the same way we catagorise product ads. The more they get people thinking about their actions the better....... In my opinion

Victor

Wair until they want to watch Kill Bill 2. :eek:

Ayla wrote:

It's the summer...can't the kids be outside playing at 8o'clock?

That or drinking bulmers and getting blow jobs in the bushes. :eek:

I think children appreciate drink + drive = crash = bad. Its like dinosaurs - they are meant to be scary. Our generation learned about seat belts, they're learning about the consequences.

simu

Hill Billy wrote:

God be with the days when the only TV ads you had to worry about at tea-time as you were tucking into your bacon, cabbage & potatoes were those for getting rid of Fluke, Liverworm, Scour or Mastitis.

Fluke... and immature fluke! Used to gross me out as a kid tbh!

daveg

I am stuck in an airport on Prague waiting for a flight so I have just skimmed through this thread. Firstly I did not want to start the usual boards debate which goes "perhaps your kids should be outside playing" or "your kids should not up that late watching TV" etc. I am sick and tired of people on their high horses on boards. This is just a simple debate regarding inappropriate ads-tv programs before the watershed. As parents should we not all be agreeing that TV before watershed should not be showing inappropriate material on TV otherwise whats the point in having the watershed.

On another note I too remember playing out from morning till night when I was a kid but times are different now. Thats not to say my son is not out playing all the time...

Ayla

daveg wrote:

I am sick and tired of people on their high horses on boards.

First daveg - good luck on your journey in Prague. Second, since this comment was more than likely aimed at my earlier posts, let me just say that I'm not on any high horse. Just like everyone else, I'm expressing my views (and, last I checked on the forum rules, that was allowed).

daveg wrote:

TV before watershed should not be showing inappropriate material on TV otherwise whats the point in having the watershed.

Now, this is a valid point, and the one that's definitely the focus of this forum. The question, though, is what you consider "inappropriate" may not be that way for others (thus the current discussion over the drunk driving ads...if parents teach their kids the reasons behind these ads, they can be used as a good teaching tool...or parents can simply write them off as "inappropriate"...to each their own).

daveg wrote:

On another note I too remember playing out from morning till night when I was a kid but times are different now.

And finally, times have always been different. Our parents also lamented the "decline" in social morals, etc and rememebered a better time when they were kids. Does that mean they surpressed our ability to go outside and be kids? My folks didn't anyway...they mearly adapted to the times and did the best they could to protect us. They didn't plop us in front of a tv because it was "safer" than outside. I'd imagine that's the reason why you don't keep your son inside all the time...you've also adapted to the times.

The Hill Billy

daveg wrote:

I am stuck in an airport on Prague waiting for a flight so I have just skimmed through this thread. Firstly I did not want to start the usual boards debate which goes "perhaps your kids should be outside playing" or "your kids should not up that late watching TV" etc. I am sick and tired of people on their high horses on boards. This is just a simple debate regarding inappropriate ads-tv programs before the watershed. As parents should we not all be agreeing that TV before watershed should not be showing inappropriate material on TV otherwise whats the point in having the watershed.

On another note I too remember playing out from morning till night when I was a kid but times are different now. Thats not to say my son is not out playing all the time...

Great minds...etc.

scrattletrap

I got sick of the negativity on TV at all hours of the day, even the adds for dept repayments during cartoons so my solution. I got rid of the tv channels all of them even RTE. We have the TV and the boys have boxes of DVDS and their allowed one a day (most days they don't even watch them), personally I would only watch a movie once a week the rest of the time is spent reading and playing while the kids are up. My eldest whose 8 loves football and his grandfather tapes the better world cup matches so they have been his one a day. They aren't missing out on anything by not having sexual innuendo and violence (which I thought even the childrens programmes aimed at the over fives had) pushed into their faces 24/7. It is not for everyone but it works for me.

Ayla

Scrattletrap -

Seems like a great idea to me. I admire your willingness to provide your kids w/ something else other than tv. Not for everyone, but that's the way it'll be in my house as well.

I was remembering yesterday that my mom used say that she'd rather chuck a hammer through the front of a tv set than see us turn into couch potatoes. So anytime an argument started up over what to watch or not wanting to do our homework b/c there was something on tv, my mom would go and grab the hammer. I think she only had to do that once or twice and we never tempted her again.

Ickle Magoo

I am sick and tired of people on their high horses on boards

And why is it those who are on their high horses about marriage have never been married, on their high horse about gardens live in an apartment, etc, etc?!

Anyway, back on-topic....I agree that some ads altho harsh, can send a valuable lesson to our children - such as the drunk driving one....I also agree some ads are unsuitable for pre-watershed viewing...as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant what programme is on & whether a child should be up or not - that's up to the parent to decide & a bit cheeky to comment on imo....as the majority of parents can testify, most households will have had a child up pre-watershed & the telly on at some stage....it happens...

Also, parents often record programmes for later screenings (the following morning perhaps) and so shouldn't have to edit out unsuitable ads...I think there should be a clearly defined watershed and the pre-watershed content is fit for family viewing or there is no watershed & parents will have to police what is shown more vigourously....but this kind of wishy-washy attitutude with riskier ads/programmes/vids etc starting to creep onto screens earlier & earlier does make life harder for Mums & Dads...:(

layke

I remember watching Nightmare on Elm st. and Aliens at the age of 10-12 (we used to give the video shop guy a fake note to get 15's and 18's).

Still haven't become a rapist or a psycho (yet).

Trust me parents kids know a lot more then you think. I knew what sex was when I was 6 from the older kids, yet I didn't understand it or care.

I sure found out tho.